Steven P. BarrettWHY CAN'T SOME CONSERVATIVES EVER GIVE FDR A BREAK FOR SAVING FREE ENTERPRISE?
July 21st 2008 04:45
By Steven Barrett
Undoubtedly, some people are probably sick and tired of what they see as shameless, undeniably and perhaps uncontrollably shameless shilling and defending of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" programs.
But when it comes to a lot of baloney written by pro-big business columnists like Thomas Sowell, whose antipathy towards almost any governmental actions taken to relieve the misery of people and small businesses hit hard during recessions and depressions, in particular, Sowell himself puts himself in his own shamess catagory.
So it's my shameless catagory vs. Sowell's shameless catagory. I leave it to you, readers to see who's on the side of the people.
To borrow from the great man himself, (no, not Tom Sowell,) but FDR - "This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly."
Sowell has a point in picking apart the Big O's rather smug approach towards raising capital gains taxes. I agree with the columnist and from what I could tell from Obama's rather airy response to ABC's Charlie Gibson, the junior Senator from Illinois needs a history lesson. And Sowell's right in reminding his readers this isn't like the dark days when FDR took over.
On the other hand, there's a lot of uncertainty and you don't have to be an economist to understand why. The next time you visit Ft. Lauderdale, just ask around how the housing market's going and they'll tell you foreclosures jumped up by a whopping additional 48 percentage points and the mood in Michigan, Ohio and other leading industrial states isn't very cheery, either.
Sowell is wrong to compare the Big O's use of rhetoric to FDR's. For one, while many of Roosevelt's programs did not work, and the people knew it, he nevertheless gave them real hope whereas Hoover gave them more gloom. I'm not even sure if the Big O could inspire people if he was hit with a setback, whereas FDR's own magical personality was able to keep people going and going long after the "experts" would've said to pack it in and just rely on the good graces of the free market system. Sure, wouldn't that have gone over well.
And Roosevelt did not demonize business. He only went after the fat cats who drove free enterprise into the ground thanks to their peculiar brand of shamelessness and greed. We have a lot of stinkers abusing the private system today as in the past. But you don't have these stinkers calling out for national guardsmen with fixed bayonets to settle labor disputes anymore. The old boys whom FDR had reason to demonize wouldn't hesitate to run bayonets sthrough their own mothers in order to protect their ever so-sacred "property rights" over the common good of everyone.
In case Sowell, who's really a bright writer, has forgotten, he only needs to see what happened in Europe at that same time to businesses who were willing to coop themselves for some of the most evil and diabolical governments and reasons of all times -- just so they could protect their bottom lines as well. They also did this because they had for years squeezed the workers and small businessmen of their respective nations to the points of near complete socialization in Germany and Italy -- and full socialization -- at bayonet point -- in Russia. FDR, by working harder to help the working people and small and mid sized businesses saved capitalism from the greed of its most ridiculously greedy and unconscionable crooks. For this, the actual savior of his class was called the "traitor to his class." And for his harshest critics, he told a nation looking for some positive leadership, to judge him by his enemies.
In this respect things haven't changed all that much. But alas, the Big O, despite what his most ardent and fawning fans think of him, he's nowhere near FDR's class, even on Roosevelt's worst days when he was dead tired from standing up with ten pounds of steel strapped to his legs.
As for fearful prospects of the Big O sitting down with President Goofy in Iran, much like Chamberlain with Hitler, I wouldn't worry as much because we have so much more riding in our favor whereas Britain had already left her guns at the hotel before she got to the saloon.
All the Big O, upon the advice of his military advisers, has to do is give an eye signal, cut off the talks and make sure he's on Air Force One well out of harm's way before the shooting starts. And make damn sure the Iranians know full well what an opportunity they lost.
Undoubtedly, some people are probably sick and tired of what they see as shameless, undeniably and perhaps uncontrollably shameless shilling and defending of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" programs.
But when it comes to a lot of baloney written by pro-big business columnists like Thomas Sowell, whose antipathy towards almost any governmental actions taken to relieve the misery of people and small businesses hit hard during recessions and depressions, in particular, Sowell himself puts himself in his own shamess catagory.
So it's my shameless catagory vs. Sowell's shameless catagory. I leave it to you, readers to see who's on the side of the people.
To borrow from the great man himself, (no, not Tom Sowell,) but FDR - "This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly."
Sowell has a point in picking apart the Big O's rather smug approach towards raising capital gains taxes. I agree with the columnist and from what I could tell from Obama's rather airy response to ABC's Charlie Gibson, the junior Senator from Illinois needs a history lesson. And Sowell's right in reminding his readers this isn't like the dark days when FDR took over.
On the other hand, there's a lot of uncertainty and you don't have to be an economist to understand why. The next time you visit Ft. Lauderdale, just ask around how the housing market's going and they'll tell you foreclosures jumped up by a whopping additional 48 percentage points and the mood in Michigan, Ohio and other leading industrial states isn't very cheery, either.
Sowell is wrong to compare the Big O's use of rhetoric to FDR's. For one, while many of Roosevelt's programs did not work, and the people knew it, he nevertheless gave them real hope whereas Hoover gave them more gloom. I'm not even sure if the Big O could inspire people if he was hit with a setback, whereas FDR's own magical personality was able to keep people going and going long after the "experts" would've said to pack it in and just rely on the good graces of the free market system. Sure, wouldn't that have gone over well.
And Roosevelt did not demonize business. He only went after the fat cats who drove free enterprise into the ground thanks to their peculiar brand of shamelessness and greed. We have a lot of stinkers abusing the private system today as in the past. But you don't have these stinkers calling out for national guardsmen with fixed bayonets to settle labor disputes anymore. The old boys whom FDR had reason to demonize wouldn't hesitate to run bayonets sthrough their own mothers in order to protect their ever so-sacred "property rights" over the common good of everyone.
In case Sowell, who's really a bright writer, has forgotten, he only needs to see what happened in Europe at that same time to businesses who were willing to coop themselves for some of the most evil and diabolical governments and reasons of all times -- just so they could protect their bottom lines as well. They also did this because they had for years squeezed the workers and small businessmen of their respective nations to the points of near complete socialization in Germany and Italy -- and full socialization -- at bayonet point -- in Russia. FDR, by working harder to help the working people and small and mid sized businesses saved capitalism from the greed of its most ridiculously greedy and unconscionable crooks. For this, the actual savior of his class was called the "traitor to his class." And for his harshest critics, he told a nation looking for some positive leadership, to judge him by his enemies.
Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.
True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.
In this respect things haven't changed all that much. But alas, the Big O, despite what his most ardent and fawning fans think of him, he's nowhere near FDR's class, even on Roosevelt's worst days when he was dead tired from standing up with ten pounds of steel strapped to his legs.
As for fearful prospects of the Big O sitting down with President Goofy in Iran, much like Chamberlain with Hitler, I wouldn't worry as much because we have so much more riding in our favor whereas Britain had already left her guns at the hotel before she got to the saloon.
All the Big O, upon the advice of his military advisers, has to do is give an eye signal, cut off the talks and make sure he's on Air Force One well out of harm's way before the shooting starts. And make damn sure the Iranians know full well what an opportunity they lost.
| 63 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Socializing everything from industry to medicine is the first step down a slippery slope (as seen in many other parts of the world) even as far back in recent memory as pre-World War 2, as you pointed out. I've heard people say lately that socializing much of our economy would be an FDR-style method to repair our economy. I don't think so.
We need a president with the strong character and optimism of FDR and new solutions that will benefit the whole country (and at the same time, the rest of the world). Let me know if you find such a candidate, Steven! He seems to be in hiding...
Comment by Anonymous